TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:40 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, the Honorable William M. Colmer, chairman, presiding. Present: Messrs. Colmer, Madden, Delaney, Bolling, O'Neill, Matsunaga, Smith, Anderson of Illinois, Martin, and Quillen. Staff present: Laurie C. Battle, counsel; Mary Spencer Forrest, assistant counsel; and Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel. Mr. COLMER. The committee will come to order. Mr. Celler, the committee will hear from you on the 1968 version of the civil rights bill. STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Mr. CELLER. I appear here this morning, together with a number of distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, to urge the Committee on Rules to report favorably House Resolution 1100 so that the House may work its will and adopt H.R. 2516, together with the Senate amendment thereto. Mr. COLMER. Pardon me. Would you mind rereading that last sentence? Mr. CELLER. I ask a favorable report on House Resolution 1100 so that the House may work its will and adopt H.R. 2516. I asked for such concurrence by unanimous consent; that was refused and that is why a resolution was offered. Mr. COLMER. The reason I interrupted is I wondered if the House had the opportunity to work its will. Mr. CELLER. Well, that could be interpreted a number of ways. It is like the fellow who held up a bottle and says it is half full and the other one says it is half empty. The House approved the bill, H.R. 2516, on August 16 of last year. The bill as adopted and sent to the Senate specified certain kinds of rights to be protected by Federal law and provided criminal penalties for the forcible interference with the exercise of those rights. The committee will recall that the bill was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 326 yeas to 93 nays. In the Senate H.R. 2516 was considered in public hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was reported favorably to the Senate floor on November 7, 1967. It was the subject of 7 weeks of extensive debate in the other body and was amended by the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute which contained many provisions not contained in the bill which the House adopted. In my statement this morning, I wish to outline in general terms the meaning and intent of the Senate amendment in order to promote an understanding of this committee and to help assure prompt and favorable action. However, before turning to the bill, I believe the words of President Johnson 2 years ago describing the challenge which we confront are more pertinent today. The President said: The task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities— physical mental, and spiritual-and to pursue their individual happiness. I believe that H.R. 2516, as amended by the Senate, meets that challenge. I am convinced it would significantly promote the causes of social, political, and economic progress through the rule of law to which this Nation is firmly committed. In the first place, in general terms, the provisions of sections 101 through 103 of title I parallel the coverage of H.R. 2516, as passed by the House. The Senate amendment sets forth provisions designed to protect against violent interference with the exercise of a variety of benefits and activities. Each area of protected activity is specifically described. They include: voting, public accommodations, public education, public services and facilities, employment, jury service, use of common carriers and travel in interstate commerce, and participation in federally assisted programs. The proposed statute would also protect citizens who lawfully aid or encourage participation in these activities as well as those who engage in speech or peaceful assembly opposing denial of the opportunity to participate in such activities. Persons who have duties to perform with respect to the protected activities such as public school officials, restaurant owners and employers-would also be covered. The bill prescribes penalties graduated in accordance with the seriousness of those results of violations, ranging from misdemeanor penalties to life imprisonment. The bill, as amended by the Senate, does differ, however, in the following three respects: First, to assure that dual State-Federal jurisdiction is carefully exercised by the Federal Government, the bill requires advance certification of prosecutorial authority by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General; in other words the local U.S. attorneys cannot take action unless they get advance approval; Second, the Senate bill exempts proprietors of "Mrs. Murphy" public accommodations from the prohibitions of the act; and, Third, the bill expressly states that police shall not be considered in violation of the new law for lawfully carrying out the duties of their office or for enforcing Federal or State law. Title I also established penalties for incitement to riot. These provisions penalize interstate travel or the use of interstate facilities, including the mail, to incite, organize, or promote a riot. Violations of the act are punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. To commit a punishable offense under this section, one must not only use interstate facilities with the intent to incite a riot but must also commit an overt act in furtherance of that intent. "Riot" is defined as acts or threats of violence by one or more persons in an assembly of three or more resulting in or damage to or greatly endangering the person or property of others. Actions which are the mere expression of ideas or beliefs are specifically exempted from the definition of riot. The statute makes clear that State and local law enforcement is not to be preempted by the new Federal law. A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the law of any State would operate as a bar to any Federal prosecution for the same act or acts. These provisions closely parallel the provisions of H.R. 421, the socalled antiriot bill, which was favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and adopted by the House on July 19, 1967. Titles II through VII of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2516 concern protecting the rights of American Indians. In general terms, these titles establish a bill of rights for American Indians, and provide for assumption by States of civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian country with the consent of the Indian tribes affected. Title II creates a "bill of rights for Indians in relation to their tribes similar to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution that applies to other citizens' relation to their Government. Among other features, the title retains the present maximum penalty of a $500 fine or imprisonment for a term of 6 months which may be imposed by an Indian tribe, and assures a person in criminal proceedings of the assistance of counsel for defense at his own expense. The title also provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall be available in any U.S. court to test the legality of detention by order of a tribal court. The provisions of title II would go into effect 1 year following the date of enactment in order to facilitate compliance with its terms by Indian tribes. Title III authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to draft a model code to govern the courts of Indian offenses, to assure due process in the administration of justice by such courts and to implement the rights specified by title II. It is anticipated that this model code would supplement the present code of offenses and procedures regulating the administration of justice now contained in title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, which was established more than 30 years ago. In preparing this code, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to consult with Indians, Indian tribes and interested agencies of the United States. Title IV amends Public Law 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, which conferred to certain States California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin-civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian country. Title IV provides for U.S. consent to the assumption by any State of criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian tribes, with the consent of the tribes affected. Thus, Public Law 280 is modified by requiring tribal consent as a precondition to a State's assumption of jurisdiction. Title V amends the "Major Crimes Act," 18 U.S.C. 1153, by adding "assault resulting in serious bodily injury" to the list of Federal offenses. At present, Federal courts have jurisdiction over the crimes of murder, manslaughter, rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to commit rape, carnal knowledge, arson, burglarly, robbery, embezzlement; and larcency committed by an Indian against another Indian or another person. This amendment will make possible Federal prosecution for such aggravated assault committed in Indian country. Title VI establishes a new rule governing approval by the Secretary of the Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the employment of legal counsel for Indian tribes and other Indian groups. It provides that applications relating to the employment of legal counsel made by Indian tribes or Indian groups shall be deemed approved if neither approved nor denied within 90 days from the date of filing such application with the Secretary or the Commissioner. Title VII authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to revise, compile and republish materials relating to Indian constitutional rights and Indian laws and treaties. Title VIII, entitled "Fair Housing," is designed to assure all persons an equal opportunity to buy or rent housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The goal of a "decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family" proclaimed in the National Housing Act of 1949 has not been achieved. The late President Kennedy, in November 1962, issued Executive Order No. 11063, which established a Committee on Equal Housing Opportunity and forbade discrimination in recent FHA or VA insured housing. In recent years there has been considerable State and municipal reaction against discrimination in housing and today some 22 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and a large number of municipalities have enacted fair housing laws prohibiting discrimination in private housing transactions, but nevertheless it is plain that the combined efforts of State and local laws, executive orders, as well as actions by private volunteer groups is just not enough. Court decisions are not enough. Federal legislation to eliminate the blight of segregated housing and the pale of the ghetto is demanded. While discrimination in housing is a fact which needs no proof, the consequences for both the individual and his community are not always so apparent. Segregated housing isolates racial minorities from the public life of the community. It means inferior public education, recreation, health, sanitation, and transportation services and facilities, and often means denial of access to training and employment and business opportunities. Too often it prevents the ghetto inhabitants of liberating themselves. Much of the urban crises that we witness today is a product of Negro segregation in the city ghettos and the flight of whites from the Negro and from these ghettos. To the extent that residential segregation prevents States and municipalities from carrying out their obligations to promote equal access and equal opportunity in all public aspects of community life, the 14th amendment authorizes the removal of this blight. We cannot open the gates to the domiciles outside the Medinahs, and they must remain shut up in slum quarters, if they cannot because of racial discrimination change their abode. The voice of Leviticus, the Bible tells us, proclaims liberty throughout the land. That voice did not say liberty to some and not to others. It said to all the inhabitants. The President's Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, two of the distinguished members of which are in this room this morning, for whom I have the highest regard and esteem, my distinguished colleague, the minority leader of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. McCulloch, and my distinguished committee colleague, Mr. Corman, that Commission said: what white Americans have never fully understood, what Negroes can never forget, that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintained it, and white society condones it. It is time, I think, to adopt new strategies for action which produce quick and visible programs. We need new attitudes, new understanding and new will. Fair housing will appreciably help this. This is a small key that can open a large door. Title VIII bans discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin in the rental, sale or financing of residential housing subject to certain specific limited exceptions. I shall briefly outline the coverage of these provisions: 1. Upon enactment-that is in this year, 1968-the bill would cover by statute the types of housing now subject to prohibition on discrimination under Executive order-the order I mentioned before issued by President Kennedy. This includes: 1. Housing owned or operated by the Federal Government. 2. Provided in whole or in part with the aid of loans, advances, grants, or contributions made by the Federal Government. 3. Provided in whole or in part by loans insured or guaranteed by the Federal Government. 4. Urban renewal redevelopment housing receiving Federal financial assistance. Among other types of housing these provisions cover housing provided with FHA or VA mortgage insurance or guarantees, housing in urban renewal areas, senior citizens' housing, and low rent public housing. Two, after December 31, 1968-namely, the year 1969-the bill would cover other housing subject, however, to three exemptions: (a) Any single family house sold or rented by a private owner who owns no more than three such single family houses. In the case of the sale of a single family house by an owner who is not the resident nor the most recent resident therein, this exemption applies only with respect to one such sale within a 24-month period. (b) Rooms or units in dwellings of four or fewer family units where the owner actually occupies one of the units as his living quarters. (c) Housing, operated for other than commercial purposes, furnished to members of religious organizations, associations, or societies or members of private clubs. Three, after December 31, 1969-that is in 1970 and thereafterthe single-family house sale or rental exemption would continue only if the sale or rental is made without the use of the facilities of a real estate broker or other person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, and, without the publication or posting of any notice or advertisement indicating an intention to discriminate. Thus, the bill 92-367-68-pt. 1-2 |